  Peter Member Username: Peter Post Number: 112 Registered: 02-2007 |
More good news for Michigan... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/10/09/michigan.primary/inde x.html | ||
Rocket_city Member Username: Rocket_city Post Number: 429 Registered: 04-2006 |
Ef em. You don't want to mess w/ Michigan. Especially when our temper is already flared and we're not afraid to bite. I'm an independent voter who leans democratic and am already lending my other ear to the (heaven forbid) Republican race. I think this election is going to have huge impacts on this country because whoever is elected president is going to bear the brunt of some turbulent changes. The only candidate I'm putting faith in who withdrew from Michigan is Edwards, and I don't even feel very confident about that. | ||
Dhugger Member Username: Dhugger Post Number: 193 Registered: 03-2005 |
I was in the Barack Obama camp for many months. Now I've dumped the young Senator from Illinois and will be working for Hillary Clinton. Yes I donate money and do ground work for candidates. | ||
Quinn Member Username: Quinn Post Number: 1499 Registered: 01-2005 |
Dhugger...welcome to the Clinton team. What the hell...why withdraw? Why start pitching a bitch? Just say "Michigan is important and even though it will be tough to do multiple primaries I'm going to do my best to win Michigan." What a bunch of losers...Obama included. Go Hillary 2008 | ||
Dhugger Member Username: Dhugger Post Number: 194 Registered: 03-2005 |
Quinn: I just hope Hillary Clinton is electable with the independents. My more progressive friends will have a hard time swallowing her stance on the war. | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4677 Registered: 10-2003 |
Y'all realize the Michigan primary will have no bearing on delegate selection? Backing out of the Michigan primary is akin to John McCain backing out of the Iowa Straw Poll. | ||
Tarkus Member Username: Tarkus Post Number: 392 Registered: 04-2006 |
So, let's see, the Democrats will not campaign here. They pass the new C.A.F.E. laws which seems unreasonable to our Big 3 and even Toyota. Why in the world would anyone in Detroit or Michigan vote for a Democrat. At least the Republicans came to Dearborn to debate and at the very least give lip-service to the auto industry. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 479 Registered: 02-2007 |
Go Hillary? LOL oy She's another I voted for it, I didn't vote for it, I would've voted, but I'm glad I didn't. She can't make up her mind what she did or what she'd do. The Repubs have all the beautiful Whitewater mess loaded and cocked. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 3762 Registered: 02-2005 |
Very stubborn move by the Dems. Basically it's just a sign that they don't want to do anything that will foster competition. Hilary will win, the brass want Hilary to win...it's all been decided, so why waste money in Michigan. But this will be very meaningful for the Republicans. I'm looking foward to voting for McCain; I don't expect him to win, though, and am planning on voting for Giuliani next fall. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 795 Registered: 07-2006 |
I was still listening to all candidates, republican, democrat and others, and was for the most part leaning strongly towards the dems (some repubs still had my ear, though). Now all of the democratic candidates that withdrew from Michigan have lost my vote, now, and in every future election, for choosing to ignore our state and the issues facing us. Tonight i will be going over what the GOP candidates had to say at the debate, and considering which, if any, might be worthy of my vote, since clearly, most of the Dems don't want it. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2569 Registered: 10-2003 |
The two that I would have considered voting for in the primary, Biden and Richardson, have withdrawn, so I guess there is no point in voting in that contest. Michigan Democratic voters once again have no say in the primary. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in the general election, I will be voting Republican. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2405 Registered: 07-2004 |
The State of Michigan messed up by moving up the primary, which was against some rule, which the democratic candidates who are withdrawing felt should have been followed. Their withdrawal is in protest. Blame Michigan politics not the democratic candidates. Why was it so important for Michigan to move up the primary? If they weren't supposed to do it, why risk the flak of doing it? Bad move Michigan politicians. BTW, Scottr, you can only vote for one democratic candidate anyway. You make it sound like you were going to vote for all of them. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 860 Registered: 12-2006 |
Royce, Blame the candidates. Here is what they are saying: our party's rule about primaries is more important to us than winning Michigan votes, even if that costs us the election. Sheesh. The Democratic party shoots itself in the foot with astonishing regularity. Every once in a while you get a Bill Clinton to come along, a guy who has some political sense on the national level, but not often. Coleman Young, God rest his soul, understood politics better and more deeply than these Democratic president wannabees. I'm politically sort of independent (a left-leaning Libertarian, if that makes any sense at all) but right now, given the stewardship the Republicans have shown at the national level lately, it would be hard for me to vote for a Republican running for County Drain Commissioner. But then November '08 is still a ways down the pike. Anyone care to take a stab at what the general election will look like? Who are the major party Pres and Veep candidates? | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 796 Registered: 07-2006 |
quote: I didn't intend on it sounding like that, i am well aware of that. In short, if any of the candidates who withdrew end up as the democratic nominee, i will not vote for them. And if the pledge to not campaign here before the primary is upheld, that will also reflect poorly on any remaining candidates. Since my feelings towards the GOP are similar to Professorscott's (well put, btw), this has really pissed me off. It's beginning to look like another 'lesser of two evils' campaign, since I doubt the GOP will nominate one of the candidates I prefer. and yes, i am aware that in the primary i can only vote for one party. i'm just not sure which one i'm voting for yet, since neither is particularly impressing me now. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4214 Registered: 10-2003 |
The wise move would be to place all candidates on the ballot, whether they file or not. Oregon used to do that, maybe still does. In 1968 Hubert Humphrey, who was unpopular for his support of the Viet Nam war, ducked primaries to avoid being embarrassed instead gaining delegates in back room controlled caucuses. He could not duck Oregon ended up getting thumped in something like fifth place. He went on to gain the nomination in Chicago amid protests and tear gas and his candidacy was fatally wounded. Reform followed. Maybe it is time for reform again. I totally agree with the early primary move. There is no reason why NH and IA should have such influence. Michigan is demographically fourth closest to the national demographics and is far more representative. Florida, possibly the most important state, is likewise being snubbed and the implications are serious. The Republicans who by all measures should be spanked now have an Nixonian opening. There is a good opportunity for a third way. I could even see a four way race, especially if Giuliani is nominated and the Christian right looks elsewhere. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 2810 Registered: 11-2005 |
Will we still be able to write in the name of one of the withdrawn candidates? | ||
Tarkus Member Username: Tarkus Post Number: 393 Registered: 04-2006 |
Pam, for god's sake why would you want to?? Don't you get it, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR VOTE. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 2811 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: Yeah, well I am going to ignore that and vote for whoever I want anyway since I don't want Hillary. | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4678 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Why should they. The Michigan primary is meaningless. It would have no impact on the delegate count at the convention. Politicians normally don't care about meaningless votes. | ||
Tarkus Member Username: Tarkus Post Number: 394 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: "The Michigan primary is meaningless." Go ahead my little sheeples keep voting for the people who thumbing their nose at us | ||
Corvax Member Username: Corvax Post Number: 89 Registered: 11-2003 |
Dhugger, Come back! Obama is clearly the best and most electable candidate. Study his 53% dem priamry win for Senate in Illinois in a field of 7 credible candidates (including 25% of a largely white vote in a region he couldn't then afford to campaign in much). Talk about cross-over appeal, in a recent poll of Iowa Republican voters, he was the third choice from among all candidates for president! Wanna win? Come back! | ||
Quinn Member Username: Quinn Post Number: 1500 Registered: 01-2005 |
I think the perception of skipping a primary in Michigan could be used by a republican opponent in the general. I know the primary is meaningless, but hey, this country votes basically because they like someone or not. Look at Bush. People voted for him not because he was smart, or had experience. They liked him. Don't underestimate the "look" of skipping our primary. This really is a silly thing the dems are doing, and I'm glad Hillary had the brains to stay out of it. Notice all the press this week about voters warming to Hillary...because they like her. | ||
English Member Username: English Post Number: 585 Registered: 10-2003 |
I am furious with the Obama camp and just sent them an email. I was a supporter, donated $, and was looking forward to working on the ground. You'll take my MONEY, but you won't campaign in my STATE??? In all good conscience, since this is a fight between the MDP and the candidates, all campaigns who withdraw from MI should return all funds provided by Michigan donors. They won't do that, though, which proves that they're the scum that people have told me for years they were. | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4679 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Actually it is a fight between the MDP and the DNC. The candidates are only playing by the rules set out for Democratic nomination process. Those rules were in place when you donated money. They will all campaign in Michigan if the MDP followed the rules set out by the DNC. If you want to be mad at anyone be mad at Debbie Dingell. If an early Michigan vote was so important she should have worked harder, as a National Committeewoman, to get Michigan an early spot on the calender. She and the other Michigan leaders failed and now are resorting to a cheap grandstand ploy. Don't fall for it. You are aware that if Obama remained on the ballot, campaigned in Michigan, and won the "primary" in a landslide it would have ZERO impact on who will win the Democratic nomination. Granholm and company knew that when they moved up the primary at the 11th hour. | ||
English Member Username: English Post Number: 586 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks for the info, Jelk. I guess it's another wrap for the Clintons, eh? I just don't know what to do this year. I'm praying Gore gets in at the last minute, but that's not going to happen. I'm not inspired by Edwards at all, and no one else among the Dems is electable. Hillary cannot win a national election. This is absolute madness. And Debbie Dingell loathes Obama anyway. His Detroit Economic Club speech almost made her pop a vein on the Sunday morning talk shows the weekend after. I liked Obama's message of hope and change, and enjoyed his books, but I'm extremely disappointed that my support was really in vain. My family is talking about looking @ Mitt Romney for November 2008. Apparently his dad was a great Michigan governor before my time. I'll start doing some research, as I know nothing about Mitt... but I'm willing to learn. | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 202 Registered: 10-2005 |
quote: No, Hillary did NOT "stay out of it". She is right in the middle of "it". She pledged not to campaign here until after the primary. Which, of course, will mean she won't campaign here much at all because, by then, she'll already have "won" the nomination. Why would she bother? Who are Detroiters and the UAW voter going to vote for? Romney? The National Dems know that Hillary (by this move) can just take the delegates by simple default and not through any real engagement with democratic and undecided voters. With the state doing as poorly as it is and being led by democrats... its no wonder the National Dems want to stay as far away as possible. They might have to answer real questions about policy and results. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 134 Registered: 06-2007 |
The Dems have pretty much alienated me with this farcical display of arrogance. Not a real issue though since I actually was leaning for Gravel anyway. Guess I might just have to vote at the GOP primary since I'll probably be voting them next fall. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4215 Registered: 10-2003 |
"You are aware that if Obama remained on the ballot, campaigned in Michigan, and won the "primary" in a landslide it would have ZERO impact on who will win the Democratic nomination. " That^ is ridiculous. It is akin to saying that winning the New Hampshire primary, with its next-to-ZERO delegates, has next-to-ZERO impact. Winning in Michigan, which is far more in the center of the national demographics, would have a huge impact on fund-raising and believabiity of the candidates' appeal. Personally I think Michigan and Florida should get together and jump both IA and NH and break the DNC's system of picking losers once and for all. If they choose to discredit two of the most important swing states, it is the DNC which will be toppled and true primary reform could emerge. Shame on Obama and the others from running away from Michigan to win pennies by not offending the farmers in IA and NH. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2578 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Wrong. New Hampshire has a lot more delegates than Michigan does, because none of Michigan's delegates will be seated at the convention. The candidates knew that and they acted accordingly. quote: The DNC won't be toppled because we still live in a democracy. 48 of the 50 states are happy with what they're doing. As for primary reform, that's something that happens within the DNC. Debbie Dingell et al chose to avoid that process, instead focusing on a grandstand that cost Michigan its votes and credibility. quote: If someone robs a bank at gun point, do you throw the bank teller in jail? The candidates didn't make the rules and they certainly didn't do anything to compel Michigan to break them. | ||
Jelk Member Username: Jelk Post Number: 4681 Registered: 10-2003 |
Lowell you are clearly ignorant of the process. The DNC has as black-letter policy a rule stating that any primary that violates their scheduling rules will not impact delegate selection. The Granholm/Dingell/Mike Bishop primary will have as much impact on the process at the GOP's Iowa Straw Poll. Shame on Granholm and Dingell for trying to score cheap political points to mask their inability to improve Michigan's standing within the process. Actually shame on Michigan's ignorant electorate for falling for such a pedestrian stunt. There was a time and place for reforming the 2008 nomination process and Michigan's leaders dropped the ball. If the Democrats were to break their own rules and let Michigan and Florida's primaries matter at least 10 more states would move their primaries up in an attempt to be the first. By the time the dust settled from that game of leap-frog, we will wake up to find the primaries all took place yesterday. The nomination process needs reform. And it needs to be reformed well before an election season, not at the 11th hour by politicians looking to game the process for or against specific candidates. Half of this snit of the Michigan primary has to do with the fact that John Edwards has strong support among Michigan union leaders and would win a caucus walking away. The pro/con Michigan primary fault line within the MDP almost neatly matches who is backing Edwards and who is backing another candidate. I don't necessarily disagree that an early Michigan primary or caucus date is a bad idea. But I reject the ham-fisted way Michigan's political hacks went about creating the early primary. They are insulting my intelligence as a voter. I'm actually impressed with Obama, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, et al for saying this primary is meaningless and we aren't going to waste Michigan voters time by participating in a charade of an election. Believe me, if even one delegate was selected by this primary no one would be pulling their name off the ballot. As for real reform, I'd advocate eliminating the primaries and scheduling a national caucus day on a Saturday in May of the election year. There is no reason to spend public money to hold an election for political parties to pick convention delegates. I'm sure some shrill voices will fret that caucuses are undemocratic but a caucus is open to all voters of that party and caucuses tend to attract informed citizen-activists. Besides I'm not a small-d democrat. With the obvious exception for Michigan's 1988 "holy-roller" caucuses (Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson) caucus voters tend to make better decisions then under-informed primary voters. |
